Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation for Treating Physical Health Conditions (for Idaho Only)
This policy governs coverage and medical necessity determinations for transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) and related technologies when used to treat medical (non-behavioral) conditions for members in the state of Idaho, including Idaho Medicaid Plus plans.
Policy Summary
PayerUnitedHealthcare
PolicyTranscranial Magnetic Stimulation for Treating Physical Health Conditions (for Idaho Only)
Policy CodePolicy CS124ID.B
Change TypeRevised coverage stance and coding updates
Effective DateJun 1, 2026
Next Review DateN/A
Key ActionObtain prior authorization per member-specific benefit plan and document indication, stimulation parameters, prior conservative treatments, and objective outcome measures when requesting coverage.
Revised list of unproven and not medically necessary services and added TMS for treating traumatic brain injury (TBI) and theta-burst stimulation including accelerated and/or MRI-guided protocols.
Added notation that several CPT codes (0858T, 0889T, 0890T, 0891T, 0892T, 90867, 90868, 90869) are not on the State of Idaho Medicaid Fee Schedule and therefore may not be covered by Idaho Medicaid.
Updated Description of Services, Clinical Evidence, FDA, and References to reflect most current information.
2new unproven indications explicitly added
4CPT codes added
1
Trek Health ingests and normalizes Transparency in Coverage data and payer policy updates to give provider organizations a clear view of how commercial reimbursement behaves across markets, payers, and services. Our platform transforms raw payer disclosures into structured intelligence that supports contract evaluation, payer negotiations, and service line strategy. By combining market benchmarks with ongoing policy visibility, Trek helps teams identify variability, risk, and opportunity in commercial reimbursement. The result is faster insight, stronger negotiating positions, and more informed financial decisions.
CPT code removed
8CPT codes not on Idaho Medicaid Fee Schedule
Idaho-onlypolicy application
Coverage Criteria and Evidence Summary
Not medically necessary / Unproven uses
Unproven and not medically necessary
Unproven TMS indications: Transcranial magnetic stimulation for treating all medical (non-behavioral) conditions is considered unproven and not medically necessary due to insufficient evidence of efficacy
Includes but is not limited to the conditions listed below
Examples of conditions considered unproven: Alzheimer disease; chronic neuropathic pain; dystonia; epilepsy; headaches; Parkinson disease; stroke; tinnitus; traumatic brain injury
List is illustrative, not exhaustive
Specific unproven technologies/protocols: Navigated transcranial magnetic stimulation for treatment planning or diagnosing motor neuron diseases/neurological disorders; theta-burst stimulation, including accelerated and/or MRI-guided protocols
These technologies/protocols are considered unproven and not medically necessary
Coverage-relevant evidence summaries
Summary coverage-relevant evidence statements by condition (informational — explicit coverage policy statements not provided in this excerpt):
Epilepsy — evidence: Randomized trials of rTMS in drug-resistant epilepsy are small and heterogeneous; two of eight trials showed large within-group seizure reductions while most did not; evidence certainty is low to very low and adverse events are uncommon but seizures can increase in a small number of individuals.
Cochrane and prior systematic reviews summarized multiple small RCTs
Migraine/Headache — evidence: Multiple systematic reviews and meta-analyses suggest rTMS may reduce migraine frequency and monthly migraine days in some protocols/targets (e.g., HF-rTMS over C3 or left DLPFC) but heterogeneity in stimulation parameters, small sample sizes, and variable quality make conclusions preliminary; NICE advises use only with governance/research arrangements.
Network meta-analysis included 19 RCTs (n=1,493) showing HF-rTMS-C3 reduced monthly migraine days
Parkinson disease — evidence: Systematic reviews and meta-analyses report modest, short-term motor improvements with rTMS in PD (some analyses show significant effects for HF-rTMS over M1, multisession and bilateral stimulation may have larger effects), but heterogeneity, small studies, and variable parameters limit definitive protocol recommendations.
Covered vs. Not Supported Indications (evidence summary)
Coverage may be considered for specific indications with supportive moderate-quality evidence and objective outcome measures; other indications lack sufficient evidence.
Potentially supported indications: High-frequency rTMS targeted to primary motor cortex (M1) has shown statistically significant but often transient reduction in chronic neuropathic pain in multiple RCTs; HF- or LF-rTMS has shown potential to improve motor function after stroke on some measures (e.g., Fugl-Meyer) in small RCTs; rTMS demonstrated improvements in tinnitus scores in pooled RCTs/meta-analyses at 1 month and up to 6 months.
Evidence certainty varies; multiple sessions may prolong effects for neuropathic pain and stroke motor outcomes
Situations with limited or insufficient evidence: rTMS for many other indications—including DLPFC stimulation for chronic pain broadly, post-spinal cord injury neuropathic pain as routine therapy, deep or ACC-targeted rTMS for central neuropathic pain, cognitive improvement after TBI, and many stroke outcomes such as spasticity or long-term functional recovery—has mixed, inconsistent, or low-quality evidence and is not proven for routine clinical use.
Several systematic reviews concluded very-low to low-quality evidence or no significant effect; guideline recommendations (AAO-HNS, AAN) reflect insufficient or negative guidance for some indications
Evidence-based coverage summaries and emerging/unproven indications
Coverage stance and supporting evidence summaries present in this section:
nTMS for preoperative motor/language mapping: nTMS may aid preoperative mapping and is associated with increased odds of gross total resection and reduced permanent motor deficits in observational studies; however, available data are from limited, heterogeneous observational studies and well-designed multicenter RCTs are needed to establish clinical impact.evidence: observational meta-analyses and systematic reviews
Raffa et al. and Jeltema et al. systematic reviews/meta-analyses report improved GTR rates and reduced permanent motor deficits
Theta-burst stimulation (including accelerated/MRI-guided): Evidence is lacking to conclude benefit for accelerated repetitive MRI-guided theta-burst stimulation; small RCTs and pilot studies are inconclusive and further research is required.insufficient evidence
Studies to date are small and heterogeneous (e.g., Rymaszewska et al., Chen et al.)
This policy considers transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) for all medical (non-behavioral) conditions to be unproven and not medically necessary because current evidence is insufficient to establish efficacy. Examples include, but are not limited to, Alzheimer disease, chronic neuropathic pain, dystonia, epilepsy, headaches, Parkinson disease, stroke, tinnitus, and traumatic brain injury. For TMS indications directed at behavioral disorders, refer to the separate Optum Behavioral Clinical Policy titled “Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation.”
Evidence for repetitive TMS (rTMS) in chronic headache and migraine is limited and heterogeneous. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE, 2014) concluded that quantity and quality of evidence are limited and recommended that TMS for migraine be used only with special arrangements for clinical governance, consent, audit, or research. Similarly, the European Headache Federation has stated that application of noninvasive rTMS in chronic headaches is not yet evidence based given the paucity of controlled data.
The American Academy of Otolaryngology—Head and Neck Surgery (AAO‑HNS) clinical practice guideline (2014) advised that clinicians should not recommend TMS for patients with persistent, bothersome tinnitus.
The AAO‑HNS guideline recommendation against TMS for persistent tinnitus is acknowledged in the evidence review. In addition, patterned TMS protocols such as theta‑burst stimulation, including accelerated and MRI‑guided approaches, are experimental and lack sufficient evidence to support routine clinical use; these protocols were specifically named as unproven in the policy update.
As part of the policy revision effective 06/01/2026, TMS for traumatic brain injury (TBI) was explicitly added to the list of services considered unproven and not medically necessary.
The policy lists theta‑burst stimulation (including accelerated and/or MRI‑guided protocols) among technologies considered unproven and not medically necessary, because studies demonstrating clinical use and safety of accelerated, MRI‑guided theta‑burst approaches are lacking and do not establish a beneficial effect on health outcomes.
Rationale: For non‑behavioral medical indications, the body of evidence for TMS is limited by small, heterogeneous trials, inconsistent stimulation parameters and targets, and generally low or very‑low certainty of benefit for many conditions. Systematic reviews and meta‑analyses report mixed or modest short‑term effects in select contexts (for example, some neuropathic pain and limited motor outcomes after stroke), but overall evidence does not reliably demonstrate sustained clinical benefit across the range of medical conditions considered. Consequently, TMS for medical (non‑behavioral) indications is considered unproven and not medically necessary.
Pooled evidence does not support routine use of noninvasive brain stimulation (NIBS), including rTMS, for neuropathic pain after spinal cord injury (SCI). A meta‑analysis of available trials found no significant effect of rTMS, tDCS, or related NIBS modalities on pain reduction in individuals with post‑SCI neuropathic pain, and therefore routine clinical use is not supported.
A 2020 meta‑analysis specifically examining NIBS for post‑SCI neuropathic pain pooled randomized and crossover trials and found no significant pain reduction versus sham, further indicating that current evidence does not support routine clinical application in this population.
Theta‑burst stimulation, including accelerated and MRI‑guided protocols, is designated as unproven and not medically necessary due to insufficiency of studies demonstrating safety and clinically meaningful benefit; small RCTs and pilot studies report inconclusive results and further research is required before routine use can be supported.
The policy update explicitly added TMS for traumatic brain injury (TBI) to the list of services considered unproven and not medically necessary, reflecting the current absence of robust evidence of efficacy for this indication.
The revised policy explicitly lists both TMS for TBI and theta‑burst stimulation protocols (including accelerated and MRI‑guided approaches) among services considered unproven and not medically necessary pending higher‑quality evidence.
Procedure, CPT/HCPCS, and FDA Codes
Applicable CPT/HCPCS codes (reference)CPT
0858T
Externally applied transcranial magnetic stimulation with concomitant measurement of evoked cortical potentials with automated report.
0889T
Personalized target development for accelerated, repetitive high-dose functional connectivity MRI-guided theta-burst stimulation derived from a structural and resting-state functional MRI, including data preparation and transmission, generation of the target, motor threshold-starting location, neuronavigation files and target report, review and interpretation.
0890T
Accelerated, repetitive high-dose functional connectivity MRI-guided theta-burst stimulation, including target assessment, initial motor threshold determination, neuronavigation, delivery and management, initial treatment day.
0891T
Accelerated, repetitive high-dose functional connectivity MRI-guided theta-burst stimulation, including neuronavigation, delivery and management, subsequent treatment day.
0892T
Accelerated, repetitive high-dose functional connectivity MRI-guided theta-burst stimulation, including neuronavigation, delivery and management, subsequent motor threshold redetermination with delivery and management, per treatment day.
90867
Therapeutic repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) treatment; initial, including cortical mapping, motor threshold determination, delivery and management.
90868
Therapeutic repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) treatment; subsequent delivery and management, per session.
90869
Therapeutic repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) treatment; subsequent motor threshold re-determination with delivery and management.
Policy coding changes and notable codesCPT
0889T
CPT code added in policy
0890T
CPT code added in policy
0891T
CPT code added in policy
0892T
CPT code added in policy
0858T
CPT code noted as not on Idaho Medicaid Fee Schedule
90867
CPT code noted as not on Idaho Medicaid Fee Schedule
90868
CPT code noted as not on Idaho Medicaid Fee Schedule
90869
CPT code noted as not on Idaho Medicaid Fee Schedule
64999
CPT code removed in policy
FDA device product codes (informational)mixed
GWF/HAW/IKN/OBP/OCI/OKP
FDA product codes referenced for TMS devices (informational)
Policy code updates and Idaho Medicaid fee-schedule notesCPT
0889T
Added CPT code 0889T
0890T
Added CPT code 0890T
0891T
Added CPT code 0891T
0892T
Added CPT code 0892T
64999
Removed CPT code 64999
0858T
CPT code noted as not on Idaho Medicaid Fee Schedule
90867
CPT code noted as not on Idaho Medicaid Fee Schedule
90868
CPT code noted as not on Idaho Medicaid Fee Schedule
90869
CPT code noted as not on Idaho Medicaid Fee Schedule
Prior Authorization, Documentation, and Billing Guidance
Prior Authorization
Prior Authorization and Procedure Codes
Providers should obtain prior authorization per member-specific benefit rules before delivering TMS/rTMS services. The CPT/HCPCS codes listed in this policy are for reference only and inclusion does not guarantee coverage or payment. Verify prior authorization requirements with UnitedHealthcare and submit requests that align with the member’s contractual benefit plan.
Prior authorization required per member-specific benefit plan.
Listed procedure and diagnosis codes are for reference only and may not be all inclusive.
Prior Authorization
Prior Authorization: Indication, Parameters, and Objective Measures
When prior authorization is requested for repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS), the request should clearly state the clinical indication and include objective baseline measures and planned outcome measures to assess response. Documentation should also specify the stimulation modality and parameters (e.g., site, frequency, pulse count, session number) and whether motor threshold determination or neuronavigation was used.
Indication and relevant diagnosis.
Background and Rationale
Background: Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) is a noninvasive technique that uses pulsed magnetic fields to induce electrical currents in cortical tissue. Single‑pulse TMS is used diagnostically, while repetitive TMS (rTMS) and variant protocols such as theta‑burst and navigated TMS are investigated for therapeutic modulation of cortical function in a range of neurologic conditions.
Definitions and Technical Terms
inv-42: Theta-burst stimulation definition
DefinitionTheta-burst stimulation (TBS) is a patterned form of repetitive TMS in which short bursts of 3–5 pulses at a higher intra-burst frequency are delivered with specific interburst timing to produce an overall lower-frequency pattern.
Variants under investigationAccelerated TBS protocols (multiple sessions per day) and fMRI/functional connectivity–guided (MRI-guided) intermittent TBS are being studied but lack sufficient evidence for routine clinical use.
Pulse pattern detailBursts consist of 3–5 pulses per burst delivered at higher intra-burst frequency with a defined interburst interval to generate thetheta-like pattern.
Clinical statusEvidence for accelerated and MRI-guided TBS is preliminary; these protocols were explicitly added to the policy’s list of unproven/not medically necessary services.
inv-43: Navigated TMS
Policy Summary
PayerUnitedHealthcare
PolicyTranscranial Magnetic Stimulation for Treating Physical Health Conditions (for Idaho Only)
Policy CodePolicy CS124ID.B
Change TypeRevised coverage stance and coding updates
Effective DateJun 1, 2026
Next Review DateN/A
Key ActionObtain prior authorization per member-specific benefit plan and document indication, stimulation parameters, prior conservative treatments, and objective outcome measures when requesting coverage.
Meta-analyses included ~23 studies with pooled short- and long-term effects
Neuropathic and other pain — evidence: rTMS (especially HF over M1 or left DLPFC) shows some short-term analgesic benefit in neuropathic pain conditions (including SCI and upper-limb neuropathic pain) in small RCTs and meta-analyses, but results are inconsistent across reviews and some pooled analyses show only modest or transient effects.
Multiple systematic reviews/meta-analyses report small effects and heterogeneity; multi-session treatments may sustain longer effects
TMS for tinnitus:
AAO-HNS guideline (2014) recommends clinicians should not recommend TMS for persistent, bothersome tinnitus despite some more recent RCT/meta-analytic signals of transient improvement; guideline recommendation advises against routine use.
guideline recommendation against
AAO-HNS clinical practice guideline (Tunkel et al., 2014)
rTMS for restless legs syndrome: AAN considers rTMS possibly effective (level C) for primary moderate to severe restless legs syndrome based on limited evidence (one class II study).level C evidence
AAN guideline (Winkelman et al., 2016, reaffirmed 2019)
TMS for tics (Tourette): AAN states there is insufficient evidence to determine benefit of various TMS protocols for tics; existing studies are class II/III and imprecise.insufficient evidence
AAN guideline (Pringsheim et al., 2019)
Baseline objective measures (e.g., seizure frequency, headache days/month, validated pain scales, motor function scores).
Planned stimulation modality and parameters (site, frequency, pulses, sessions).
Use of motor threshold determination, neuronavigation, or MRI-guided targeting.
Billing Rule
Prior Authorization and Code Coverage Note
Certain CPT codes were added and some removed in the 06/01/2026 update; some listed codes are not on the State of Idaho Medicaid Fee Schedule and therefore may not be covered by Idaho Medicaid. Providers must follow payer prior authorization and coverage procedures and confirm that the specific CPT codes will be reimbursed under the member’s plan.
Added CPT codes: 0889T, 0890T, 0891T, 0892T.
Removed CPT code: 64999.
Notation: 0858T, 0889T, 0890T, 0891T, 0892T, 90867, 90868, and 90869 are not on the State of Idaho Medicaid Fee Schedule and may not be covered by Idaho Medicaid.
Note
Verify Benefit Plan Requirements
Before applying this policy, verify the federal, state, and contractual benefit plan requirements that govern coverage for the member. In case of conflict, the federal, state, or contractual requirements for benefit plan coverage prevail over this policy.
Check member-specific plan documents and applicable laws prior to authorization or billing.
In event of conflict, federal/state/contractual requirements govern.
Denial Risk
Denial Risk for Non-Behavioral Indications
Transcranial magnetic stimulation for medical (non-behavioral) conditions listed as unproven may be denied as not medically necessary due to insufficient evidence. Examples include Alzheimer disease, chronic neuropathic pain, dystonia, epilepsy, headaches (except under special arrangements per NICE), Parkinson disease, stroke, tinnitus, traumatic brain injury, and others as detailed in the policy.
TMS for non-behavioral conditions may be denied as not medically necessary.
Refer to behavioral disorder policy for behavioral indications (Optum Behavioral Clinical Policy).
Note
Governance and Research Arrangements for Migraine TMS
For migraine indications, follow special governance, consent, audit, or research arrangements per NICE guidance when TMS is being considered; document that these arrangements are in place when submitting prior authorization requests.
NICE (2014) recommends TMS for migraine only with special arrangements for clinical governance, consent, and audit or research.
Document governance/research arrangements for migraine-related TMS prior authorization.
Denial Risk
Insufficient High-Quality Evidence May Lead to Denial
Insufficient high-quality or long-term evidence for many indications may lead to prior authorization denials. Reviewers may deny requests when evidence is limited, heterogeneous, or of low/very-low certainty for the requested indication.
Low or very-low certainty evidence (e.g., epilepsy, migraine, chronic pain) may affect coverage decisions.
Short follow-up, small trials, and heterogeneous protocols are common limitations cited.
Billing Rule
Code Listing and Coverage Note
The CPT and procedure codes listed in this policy are provided for reference purposes only and do not guarantee coverage or payment. Inclusion does not imply reimbursement rights; verify code coverage with the member’s benefit plan and applicable state fee schedules.
Listing of procedure and diagnosis codes is not all inclusive.
A code’s presence in this policy does not guarantee coverage or payment.
Documentation Required
Suggested Clinical Documentation Elements
Clinical documentation submitted for prior authorization and medical record retention should include the indication, prior conservative therapies tried (when applicable), baseline objective measures, stimulation parameters, and planned outcome measures to demonstrate medical necessity and to support post-treatment assessment.
Indication and pertinent diagnosis codes.
Prior therapies and response (medications, rehabilitative interventions, standard care trials).
Baseline and follow-up objective outcome measures (seizure frequency logs, headache days/month, validated pain scales, Fugl-Meyer/MEP for motor function).
Stimulation parameters: modality, site, frequency, pulses/session, total sessions, motor threshold, neuronavigation/MRI guidance.
Documentation Required
Document Indication, Parameters, and Outcomes
Document how the indication, stimulation parameters, and objective outcome measures were used to assess response. For continuation or repeat courses, include documented improvement relative to baseline using the specified objective measures.
Report baseline and follow-up results using validated scales or objective metrics.
Specify whether treatment met pre-defined response criteria to justify continuation.
Documentation Required
nTMS Documentation for Surgical Planning
When navigated TMS (nTMS) is used for preoperative mapping or surgical planning, include the clinical indication, imaging performed, mapping methodology and results, and a statement describing how the nTMS findings informed surgical approach or planning.
Indication for nTMS and relevant imaging (MRI/functional imaging).
Mapping results (motor/language localization, distances to DCS landmarks, MEP findings).
How nTMS altered surgical strategy (extent of resection, predicted motor outcome, craniotomy planning).
Note
Policy Use and Contractual Precedence
This policy is supplemental to and does not supersede federal, state, or contractual benefit plan requirements. In case of discrepancy, the applicable federal/state/contractual requirements govern. UnitedHealthcare reserves the right to modify policies and may use third-party tools in benefit administration.
Policy is informational and supplemental; check member-specific contractual requirements.
UnitedHealthcare may modify policies and use tools (e.g., InterQual) when administering benefits.
Step Therapy
Prior Conservative Therapy Expectation
Prior to considering rTMS, a trial of standard conservative therapies is generally expected when clinically appropriate (for example: optimized pharmacologic therapy, physical or occupational therapy, behavioral interventions, or other guideline-recommended treatments). Document prior conservative therapy attempts and responses in the clinical record and in prior authorization submissions.
Document trials of standard therapies and reason for considering rTMS (failure, intolerance, contraindication).
Conservative therapy expectation applies to many chronic pain, neuropathic pain after SCI, and other non-urgent indications.
Definition
Navigated TMS (nTMS) uses imaging and neuronavigation to localize stimulation to precise cortical anatomical locations for mapping or treatment planning.
Primary use caseInvestigated for preoperative motor and language mapping to inform neurosurgical planning and predict motor outcomes.
Evidence summaryStudies are limited by small sample sizes and heterogeneous designs; larger RCTs are needed to determine the impact on diagnostic uncertainty and treatment planning.
inv-44: High-frequency rTMS (HF-rTMS)
DefinitionHigh-frequency rTMS (HF-rTMS) refers to repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation delivered at higher stimulation frequencies, commonly reported around 5–10 Hz (and in some literature up to 20 Hz).
Common frequenciesTrials commonly report HF protocols in the 5–10 Hz range; some reviews cite HF up to 20 Hz depending on target and study design.
Clinical contextsHF-rTMS has been used in trials for migraine prevention, motor recovery in Parkinson disease (especially when targeted to M1), and neuropathic pain (M1 or DLPFC targets).
inv-45: Motor cortex (M1) targeting
DefinitionMotor cortex (M1) targeting refers to delivering TMS stimulation over the primary motor cortex as the stimulation site.
RelevanceM1 targeting is commonly used in neuropathic pain trials and motor disorder studies (e.g., Parkinson disease and stroke) and is the frequent target for HF-rTMS analgesic protocols.
Evidence notesSystematic reviews report transient analgesic effects and modest motor improvements with M1-targeted HF-rTMS, but heterogeneity and low certainty temper conclusions.
inv-46: High-frequency rTMS (HF-rTMS) — duplicate
Definition (duplicate)High-frequency rTMS (HF-rTMS) is repetitive TMS delivered at higher stimulation frequencies (commonly 5–20 Hz) often targeted to motor cortex (M1) or dorsolateral prefrontal cortex in clinical studies.
Reported effectsHF-rTMS has been associated with short-term analgesia in neuropathic pain and modest motor improvements in PD and stroke literature, with effects often transient without sustained protocols.
Parameter variabilityStudy protocols vary widely in frequency, pulse number, and session count, contributing to heterogeneity in outcomes across reviews.
inv-47: Low-frequency rTMS (LF-rTMS)
DefinitionLow-frequency rTMS (LF-rTMS) is rTMS delivered at lower stimulation frequencies, commonly around 1 Hz.
Use in strokeNetwork and meta-analyses of stroke trials indicate LF-rTMS may improve certain motor outcomes (e.g., Fugl-Meyer measures for lower extremity function) and is often evaluated for poststroke motor recovery.
Contrast with HFLF-rTMS is generally thought to reduce cortical excitability, whereas HF-rTMS increases MEP amplitudes; choice of frequency depends on therapeutic target and desired physiological effect.
inv-48: nTMS (navigated transcranial magnetic stimulation)
DefinitionnTMS (navigated transcranial magnetic stimulation) is an MRI-guided/navigation technique that localizes TMS stimulation to cortical motor and language areas for preoperative mapping.
Surgical planning roleUsed to map motor and language cortical representations preoperatively to inform resection strategy and potentially predict postoperative motor deficits.
Evidence limitationsExisting studies are limited, heterogeneous, and mostly observational; standardized protocols and larger trials comparing nTMS with intraoperative DCS are needed to confirm clinical impact.
inv-49: Theta-burst stimulation (TBS)
Definition (TBS)Theta-burst stimulation (TBS) is a patterned form of TMS delivering bursts of stimulation (continuous and intermittent protocols) designed to produce theta-frequency effects.
Common protocolsIncludes continuous TBS (cTBS) and intermittent TBS (iTBS); some studies use accelerated schedules or MRI-guided connectivity targets in experimental protocols.
Evidence and policy statusAccelerated and MRI-guided TBS variants lack sufficient clinical evidence; the policy explicitly names theta-burst stimulation (including accelerated and MRI-guided protocols) as added unproven/not medically necessary.
Inventory note (duplicate)Theta-burst stimulation is specifically identified in the policy as an added unproven and not medically necessary protocol when delivered in accelerated and/or MRI-guided forms.
Research statusSmall RCTs and pilot studies report preliminary or inconclusive results for clinical benefit; larger, well-designed trials are needed.
Practical implicationBecause these variants are listed as unproven/not medically necessary, coverage for accelerated or MRI-guided TBS is generally not supported under this policy for medical (non-behavioral) indications.